| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 7/1/2004 2:13:31 PM | Both Richard Clarke and Newsweek Magazine have come out recently, stating that Michael Moore distorted many facts in his recent movie, Fahrenheit 911. A central theme of Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a bare allegation that Saudi Arabian interests provided $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. However, Newsweek reported:
Nearly 90 percent of that claimed amount, $1.18 billion, comes from contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. The “Bush” connection: The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board once included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.
But, points out Newsweek, former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998 -- five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.
As for the sitting president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor -- a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded.
The Carlyle Group is hardly a “Bush Inc,” noted Newsweek – but rather features a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. “Its founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.”
According to the report, the movie neglects to offer any evidence that Bush White House intervened in any way to bolster the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001. Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld canceled the Crusader program the following year.
As Moore’s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks, the 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them “detailed questions." “Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,” the commission stated.
The entity in the White House that approved the flights wasn’t the president, or the vice president -- it was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration. Clarke has testified that he gave the approval conditioned on FBI clearance.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks.
Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake."
"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request," he explained.
In May, Clarke confessed that he and he alone made the decision to approve the flyouts.
"It didn’t get any higher than me,” he told The Hill newspaper. "On 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
Clarke told the 9/11 Commission the same thing in March, after first detailing the episode for Vanity Fair magazine last August - leaving plenty of time for Moore to adjust his film to the facts as recounted by his primary source.
| |
|
| |
| |
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 1/13/2005 12:29:02 AM | Yeah.....and soon we will find the Iraqi WMDs....lol...
Its pretty funny that a lot of right wingers are very offended by a film maker who they say
is telling lies, but, ok for the Bush administration to tell lies...
Your govt lied to you...and..lied to the rest of the world...
Only reason Britain went to war alongside USA was the supposed "fact" that Iraq had WMDS.
Dont say thats what the security agencies advised the administration....they didnt...every security and intelligence group has since come out and said that ...the information on WMD was "at best"...sketchy..... | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 1/13/2005 6:21:29 AM | So what the U.S. made a mistake on the whole weopons of mass destruction, Iraq did have them at one point and has lied for years!
Its like if your kid steals money from your wallet many times, and then one day moneys missing again, you confront your kid and he says he didnt take it, you cant trust him because hes done so many times in the past! So you punish him on the premise that hes lied to you and you cant trust him......lesson learned! | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 1/13/2005 9:54:35 AM |
A central theme of Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a bare allegation that Saudi Arabian interests provided $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush
The article doesn't dis-prove this, just casts a lot of grey and murkiness on it.
But the basic fact remains. Are George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. both associated with the Carlyle group or aren't they. Of course they are - even if they aren't working for them now they certainly were in the past.
Therefore, you might call the Carlyle Group a "friend" of President George W. Bush. Also, though Father Bush might not have been employed by the Group until 98, your own article states that Junior Bush's link didn't end until he ran for Texas governor - meaning he had ties to the group much sooner. (Maybe from the early to mid-90's?)
That's just another example of bait-and-switch, misinformation. Doesn't actually disprove a thing.
As for the Richard Clarke statements, I think this is the only *real* criticism that can be made against the film. Since the movie was released, these details have come out (specifically in the 9/11 report) and Mr. Clarke has claimed responsibility. However, while the movie was in production none of this information was available and the situation did look entirely dodgy.
It still raises the question why Richard Clarke put so much effort into the safety of the Saudis at a time when the entire nation's safety was being questioned... And frankly, I disagree with him - anyone related to Bin Laden who might have told officials where he was should have been detained and not allowed to fly the coop.
So while you have a criticism there, I don't see it as being a lie on Moore's part. | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 1/13/2005 10:09:02 AM | Coati,
Why bother man? It is the same old sh*t everyday with these guys. You'll never get them to stop blaming Michael Moore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the ACLU for their problems and think. Or praising that megalomaniacle maniac, Bush. So why bother?
As you know we should all support torture, anti-environmental movement, forcing debt on other nations and ours, destroying the constitutiton, indefinite detentions, lies in the media, constant war, corporate profit above personal responsibility, etc. etc.
I wish this left and right BS would stop. It is a game that the elite play with us all.
Patriotism means no questions. | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 1/13/2005 12:02:31 PM | Regarding the Bin Laden Interrogations:
from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350
"...What Clarke could not testify to was the thoroughness with which the FBI questioned the departing Saudis. Last year, National Review reported that the FBI conducted brief, day-of-departure interviews with the Saudis -- in the words of an FBI spokesman, "at the airport, as they were about to leave." Experts interviewed by National Review called the FBI's actions "highly unusual" given the fact that those departing were actually members of Osama bin Laden's family. "They [the FBI] could not have done a thorough and complete interview," said John L. Martin, the former head of internal security at the Justice Department.
At the Judiciary subcommittee hearing, New York Democratic senator Charles Schumer asked Clarke how closely the Saudis were questioned. "Sir, all I can tell you is that I asked the FBI to do that," Clarke replied. "I asked the director and the assistant director of the FBI to do that. They told me they did it." End of story.
Clarke's statement -- and Schumer's questions -- came as a result of an article in Vanity Fair that questioned some aspects of the Saudi exodus. Author Craig Unger reported that the Saudis made an additional pickup flight, on an eight-passenger Learjet that flew from Tampa to Lexington, Ky., on the afternoon of September 13, 2001. That flight, Unger said, occurred at a time when the Federal Aviation Administration had banned all private flights (commercial planes had just resumed flying). "Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down," writes Unger. Yet the Saudi flight, he says, was allowed to travel undisturbed.
Vanity Fair suggests that that was the result of some sort of intervention by the Bush White House. But administration sources tell National Review they have looked into the matter and found no record of such a flight receiving any special permission to fly. The sources also say that charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly. Overall, it appears that all flights -- the ones gathering up Saudis domestically and the one from Boston to Jedda -- took place after the government allowed aviation to resume.
Yet the big question -- Who decided to allow the bin Ladens to leave the country and why? -- remains.
Vanity Fair quotes Nail al-Jubeir, the Saudi director of information, as saying that the Saudi flights were approved "at the highest level of the U.S. government" -- just as Clarke said. So far, however, those highest levels are saying very little. The FBI's account remains the same -- "We didn't clear them to leave the country, we don't have that power," a spokesman tells National Review . As for the State Department, Secretary Colin Powell, when asked about the subject on Meet the Press , said, "I don't know the details of what happened, but my understanding is that there was no sneaking out of the country; that the flights were well known, and it was coordinated within the government." For its part, the White House remains silent.
All of which has led to growing curiosity. "I think people need to know the facts," says Arizona Republican senator Jon Kyl, who chaired the Judiciary subcommittee hearing the day Richard Clarke testified. "It's a perfectly legitimate subject. Clarke very candidly testified that he had run it past the State Department."
The official silence has also led observers to wonder whether there is some information about the bin Laden flights in the 28 blacked-out pages of the House and Senate intelligence committees' September 11 report. Those pages are apparently devoted to Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks, but it seems they do not cover the Saudi departures. Sen. Kyl has read the material, and while he will not say what is in it -- not even whether it discusses the Saudis -- he says he is "unaware of any information in the intelligence reports that I have read that specifically goes into that." | |
|
| |
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:42:34 AM | [Below is an excerpt from my review of Michael Moore's most well-known movie as printed in Change-Links newsmagazine -- Barry Schier]
"Fahrenheit 9/11" -- Not-So-Hot Politics
... On September 11 ..., I went to see Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” since I was a seeking an alternative to listening to the media, which is on that day (even more than on other days) supersaturated with reactionary commentary masquerading as commentaries and “commemoration” concerning the anniversary of the “9/11 attacks.” Disney’s attempt to censor the film by refusing to allow Miramax (its subsidiary) to distribute the film which it had financed and produced backfired. Sold to and released by a different company [... Miramax], Moore’s documentary has been seen by millions, breaking all box office records for its genre, pulling in $100-million in just its first 6 weeks.
“We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it’s the fiction of duct tape or fiction of orange alerts, we are against this war …,” declared Michael Moore in his Academy Awards acceptance speech as he won “Best Documentary” for “Bowling for Columbine.” Since “Fahrenheit 9/11” won the prestigious Golden Palm award at Cannes, I had expected seeing a well-made film from a talented filmmaker containing humor, irony, and a strong antiwar message. The problem is that many of the messages of “Fahrenheit 9/11” all point in a direction that is not all at antiwar.
High points of the film include its unflinchingly graphic depictions and descriptions of the devastation caused by the war in Iraq, Moore’s interviews of youth in his economically-devastated home town of Flint, Michigan and following Armed Forces recruiters in that city as they take advantage of the lack of opportunities for youth in order to “convince” them to enlist. An African-American man remarks as he views pictures of the destruction in Baghdad that the scene reminds him of some areas of Flint.
Another feature is a subplot concerning the evolution of views of Flint resident Lila Lipscomb who (interviewed near the start of the film) quite proudly declares that she has children who enlisted in the armed forces on their own initiative and declares her opposition to antiwar protests, but by the end is a mother whose son has been killed in Iraq accompanying Moore on a visit to the nation’s Capitol speak
out against that war.
Despite these and other themes running throughout “Fahrenheit 9/11” (including), the perception of this film as in defense of civil liberties and opposed to war is wrong.
One major theme of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is articulated by Guardian correspondent / commentator Craig Unger on the film’s Web site (www.michaelmoore.com): ‘War president’ Bush has always been soft on terror … “ Moore lambastes Bush for his failure to meet with “his head of counterterrorism” (Richard Clarke) in order “to discuss the threat of terrorism.” Moore rhetorically asks why Bush “had cut terrorism funding from the FBI.” Moore complains that there is only one (!) Oregon state trooper defending the entire coast of Oregon against terrorists (i.e., “Fahrenheit 9/11” interviewee Officer Kenyon) “who has to come in on his day off to catch up on some paperwork.”
Moore’s message during sequences on police spying is not that the very nature of the government’s “anti-terrorism” campaign and the political police carrying out this campaign represent a threat to the civil liberties of all; rather, Moore notes the irony that those targets of the political police – Barry Reingold (a diminutive retired phone worker) and Peace Fresno (a group composed mostly of white middle-aged, middle-class professionals) – couldn’t possibly be a threat to anyone.
The film also reinforces ethnic profiling and other concepts which attack civil rights and liberties; Fahrenheit 9/11’s specialty is Saudi-bashing. “Saudis have $860 billion dollars invested in America,” Moore complains. Moore notes that in the days following 9/11 that no airline flights were allowed to leave the U.S., yet on 9/13/01, chartered flights carrying 142 Saudis (including many members of the bin-Laden family and friends to fly back home during that time after “a little interview [and] check[ing of] the passport”). The camera cuts to a passenger departure list; the column indicating country (i.e., Saudi Arabia) is clearly focused, yet the column immediately to the left (passenger names) is cut out of view.
The course of criticizing Bush as an incompetent who does too little, too late in taking measures against “terrorists” and for devoting too much resources to the war in Iraq and advocating instead that the country should devote those resources to the “war against terrorism” starts a rapid slide down the slippery slope to advocacy of pro-war ideas masquerading as antiwar statements. Moore films (and repeats) Richard Clarke’s complaint that Bush waited almost two months to attack Afghanistan and then only (sic!) sent 11,000 troops there.
I don’t know if the display of a title card with “Coalition of the Willing” to introduce the film’s section concerning the countries that Bush has recruited as partners of the U.S. in the war in Iraq was intended as a reference for films of several generations ago. However, Moore’s use of chauvinist caricatures as he mockingly names those countries (e.g., display of dancing girls as he announces the Pacific island nation of Palau and of a scene with a pack of charging monkeys as the voice-over states “Morocco, according to one report, offered to send 2,000 monkeys to help detonate landmines) shows that Moore apparently has not fully learned that films with racist stereotyping became socially unacceptable several generations ago.
Moreover, the crux of Moore’s complaint — that the countries which have joined the “Coalition of the Willing” don’t even have “real” armies — is criticism of those countries for making mere verbal contributions instead of “real” ones to the “coalition.” Aside from the fact that offering support — with or without providing actual material aid and/or troops — provides some minimal credibility to the lie that the war/ occupation is anything other than an imperialist effort fought by and for interests of Washington and its allies, this premise is as pro-war as it is false: Soldiers from the U.K., Italy, Australia, Poland, and others have been part of this war where Washington (and sometimes London) supply the orders and are not the only countries supplying the troops to be used as cannon-fodder. (Troops from Japan and south Korea may possibly soon join the imperialist occupation effort.)
As part of his dedication to publicizing the publicizing the message and contents of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Moore has stepped up his public appearances (including his current 60-city “Slacker Uprising Tour,” which usually includes free showings of the film). Moore’s updates and clarifications of the intentions and the message behind “Fahrenheit 9/11" belie his declared antiwar, etc., intentions for making that film.
For example, Richard Clarke’s comments about the (formal) beginning of U.S. role in Afghanistan are not that the war and is wrong but, to the contrary, a criticism of presidential preparation for that war -- too little, too late, and too unplanned. (Moore’s movie follows that former “counterterrorism” honcho’s comments with a cartoon caricaturing heads of state (including Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc.) as cowboys mounted on their steeds and blinding charging ahead.) Moore’s Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) favorably cites General Tommy Franks’ complaint: “... President Bush pulled crucial resources out of Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war.”
Moore’s masquerading of pro-war positions in an antiwar guise is no mistake, for what is figuratively at the center of Moore’s politics – and literally at the center of Moore’s Web site – is his support for slate of John Kerry, Bush’s Democratic opponent for the November elections, echoed in Moore’s speech at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention. Both support U.S. troops staying indefinitely until “stability” is achieved in Iraq. In presidential debates (and other appearances), Kerry has tried to up the ante by demanding that 40,000 additional troops be sent to Iraq and declaring that (unlike Bush, who has declared a hunt in “unrelenting pursuit” of “terrorists,” Kerry wishes to hunt and “kill” them.
When it comes to the so-called “war against terrorism” (the domestic component of the U.S. war against our civil liberties), Kerry and his party have been trying to trying outdo Bush and his party. Instead of lambasting 9/11 Commission findings as a catalog of recommendation for repression, Moore favorably notes “Kerry urged Bush to implement them all...”and criticizes Bush for criticizing Kerry for “flip-flops” despite his own vacillations and policy switches. Moore complains, “President Bush refused to fund the Container Security Act” Despite favoring that and additional legislation with anti-civil liberties content, Moore emphasizes his strong opposition to the PATRIOT Act in both his movie and his Web site (where an entire section details and denounces provisions of that law).
Even though both Moore’s movie and Web site note that the PATRIOT Act was approved in the Senate by a margin of 98-1(and a lesser, but still overwhelming, vote percentage in the “House.” (Moore conveniently omits that Kerry, like almost every other Democrat, was among the 98 votes for the bill.) Moore’s explanation for why such a draconian law, which Moore characterizes by claiming “In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, due process has disappeared from the American judicial system,” would pass such a law is preposterous. Moore’s claim (articulated in the film by Rep. John Conyers) is that those on Capitol Hill simply didn’t have the time to read the bill before voting on it. It defied logic to believe that folks who would not sign a contract without going over the small print with a fine-tooth comb -- many legislators are former lawyers, a profession which involves scrutinizing (if not nitpicking) every word on every page – sign away many of our civil liberties because of neglecting to view the content of legislation whose context and title suggests limitations on rights and liberties. The attacks on civil liberties and rights are not unique to Bush nor “Ashcroft and his cronies”. For example, The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorized warrantless surveillance, was proposed and passed (in 1978) under the Carter Administration. A call for “antiterrorism” legislation was a key part of Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union address. The More Effective Death Penalty Act, as well as much of the anti-immigrant and anti-civil-liberties legislation used by Bush after 9/11 was proposed and passed under Clinton. Instead of calling for the repeal of that and uncounted other pieces of repressive legislation, under “What You Can Do ...,” Moore instead urges calling for “removal of Attorney General John Ashcroft.”
... | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:06:43 AM | Why'd Newsweek and crew take so long?
Other than wanting to wait till it nobody cared and Moore Bashing was, frankly, irrelevant, I can't see any reason why they didn't speak up sooner...
EDIT: No wait- nevermind- someone necroposted. Glad to see we're still discussing a 4 year old topic that never got past page 1. | |
|
| |
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 8:10:59 AM | Micheal Moore was wrong on so many things if you want the real evidence go to this video, After 7 years the case against those involved is finally ready and indisputable.
http://tinyurl.com/5grqoz | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 17 | |
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:32:06 PM | "Patriotism means no questions"
....as well as no thinking, judging by many of the posts!
Lesson lerned......I mean "lurned!? No wait!!!...."lirned"!....ahhhhh forget it!!!
Just go back to drinkin', not thinkin!! | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 7:23:43 PM | Micheal Moore is what they call in the art of espionage, misinformation by way of misdirection.
"Saddam Hussein in 2000 was the first man that actually demandrd Euro for his oil.
At first, his demand was met with
ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that
he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change
his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in
other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to
the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was
in order."
"Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear
capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading
democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about
defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about
setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in
currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise
punished."
If Saddam would have gotten away with it,
other OPEC countries may have very well followed suit. In
fact, as you can see, Iran was very quick to hop on the Euro
bandwagon, because it wanted to hurt the United States, the
"Great Satan", just as bad as Saddam did. As we have already
seen, the United States of America simply couldn't allow it
to happen; just as it cannot allow it to happen now with
Iran; because the success of the Iranian Oil Bourse would
eventually result in the destruction of the U.S. economy,
and as a by-product, terminate America's dominance in the
world.
"The real "weapon of mass destruction," the euro.
Eleven European countries formed a monetary union around
this currency on January 1, 1999; Britain and Norway, the
major European oil producers, were conspicuously absent. Due
to the strength of European economies, the euro now presents
a serious challenge to the dollar in its role as key reserve
currency."
So what did the United States do to try to stop Saddam from
carrying out his plan? News articles from that time period
make it very clear what America did. The Iraqi economy had
already been crippled by almost ten years of U.N. sanctions,
and millions of people were out of work.
In addition to this, the country had been sliced up by
the Americans and the British into three sections, with a
no-fly zone in the northern sector, and another no-fly zone
in the south. In spite of these tactics, Saddam was still in
power. The American Government, under President William Jefferson Clinton, made
it very clear what its intentions were regarding the Iraqi
leader. One way or another, they were determined to get him
out of office. Iraq Liberation Act,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)
confirms that the so-called "regime change" plans did not
begin with George W. Bush; they began with Bill Clinton:
"Given the highly leveraged and fragile state of our economy,
an OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro would bring a
quick and devastating dollar and Wall Street crash that would
make 1929 look like a day at the beach."
"[The U.S. strategy to destroy OPEC] . . . requires that the
U.S. military assert our interests in oil and gas deposits
worldwide. U.S. interests in the Caspian Sea have been
secured through regime change in Afghanistan and a deal for
a new pipeline through that country."
"U.S. interests in southwest Asia are being secured through
the planned invasion of Iraq, then Iran (both OPEC members)
if it switches oil denomination."
For years
now, the American Government has been feeding us a distorted
picture regarding this entire issue. Millions of American
citizens are currently convinced that the reason why George
W. Bush has gone after Iraq, Iran and North Korea, that is,
their "Axis of Evil", is because of WMD. It's bogus. It's a
lie. It's an utter deception being used to hide the truth
from all of us.
How in the world does Kim Jong Il's
North Korea fit into the picture? It is not Islamic or Arab;
and it is most certainly not an oil exporter; so why has the
leader of North Korea been targeted?
"Iraq's move to the euro -- and Iran's expected move -- are
placing tremendous pressure on OPEC countries and other oil
producers to drop our dollar as the main transaction
currency for oil."
"Jordan began using euros to buy oil as soon as its major
supplier, Iraq, began using them to sell, and North Korea
switched to the euro late last year to protest the U.S.'
halt in fuel aid."
All three nations, Iraq, Iran and North Korea
became victims of America's WMD lies and accusations, and
all three nations chose to drop the dollar, and move to a
Euro-based economy. Do you think that this is just merely a
coincidence? I most certainly don't.
"For years, North Korea's Kim Jong-il has been flooding the
global economy with so-called "supernotes" – counterfeit
U.S. $100 bills so good even Secret Service agents can't
tell the difference without conducting sophisticated tests."
"The strategy is to flood the market with counterfeit
dollars to deflate its value. Then to convert U.S. holdings
to euros, thus pushing the dollar into a deflationary
freefall."
"In January 2006, China announced an intention to reduce 75
percent of its foreign exchange reserves currently held in
U.S. dollars."
"Since China is the world's second-largest holder of U.S.
dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves, it has the
power to create a catastrophe. At the same time, Venezuela
and Iran are now demanding that all payments for oil
shipments be paid for in euros – not dollars."
"In addition, both nations are planning regional central
banking schemes designed to hold all foreign exchange
holdings of participating countries in euros instead of
dollars. This explains the failed coup d'état on April 11, 2002
that lasted only 47 hours, whereby the head of state President Hugo Chávez was illegally detained, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court dissolved, and the country's Constitution declared void. Also why enemy operators, spearheaded by
members of the Saudi royal family, have flooded hundreds of
millions of dollars into Venezuelan held bearer-bonds that
are used to buy as many banks as possible throughout the
Caribbean and South American areas.
"All these factors cannot be coincidence. They reveal a
concerted, well-coordinated strategy to destroy America
through economics."
So was what was 9/11 about anything or just an all purpose tool to be used for many different jobs? | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/18/2008 11:08:17 PM | If the OP believes Richard Clarke now, does that mean he also believes Richard Clarke when he said that Bush was asleep on the job and didn't take his warmings about Al Qaeda seriously thereby allowing the 9/11 attack?
Can't have it both ways. | |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:47:46 AM | Well, CBC has some valuable insights into the Bush Sr /Jr /Saudi Arabia connections - and they go back a loooooong way. 
It begins in the 1970's in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family's two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil.
The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers.
1976
George H. W. Bush becomes director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During his tenure, Bush helps provide training for the Saudi royal family's palace guard, cementing a relationship that proves critical to the Bush family's fortunes. Bush also privatizes various CIA assets, with Bath considered one of the beneficiaries because of his involvement in the aircraft business. Bath will later tell a business associate he works for the CIA and was recruited by Bush Sr.
Jim Bath is alleged to be the link between the Bin Laden and Bush families.
Salem Bin Laden, older brother to future al Qaeda leader Osama, enters into a trust agreement with Jim Bath, whereby Bath will act as the bin Laden family's representative in North America, investing money in various business ventures. Bath also becomes the business representative of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a member of Saudi Arabia's most powerful banking family and owners of the National Commercial Bank, the principal bank of the Saudi royal family.
1978
Charles W. "Bill" White, a former Annapolis graduate and US Navy pilot, graduates from Harvard's business school. He is then introduced to Jim Bath who is looking for someone to manage his real estate company. Bath hires White as his partner. Money from the bin Laden and bin Mahfouz families is invested in Bath's real estate company. Among other things, Bath buys the Saudis an airport, office and apartment buildings, and invests in Texas banks. Eventually, Salem Bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz buy an enormous mansion in River Oaks, Houston's most affluent neighborhood.
George W. Bush starts up an oil company in Texas called Arbusto 78. Bath will invest money from Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz in this new company. Bill White is told by Bath that more than $1-million of the Saudis' money was pumped into Bush's venture.
1986
Bill White and Jim Bath have a falling out. Bath then launches 28 frivolous lawsuits against White, leading to White's financial ruin and expulsion from Houston's business community. White fights the lawsuits, refusing to take a huge pay off to keep silent about his knowledge of Bath's relationship to the Saudis and Bush family.
1987
Harken Energy, a company that George W. Bush's failed oil companies have been folded into, receives $25-million stock offering underwritten by significant players connected to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a Middle Eastern banking concern. Bush is key to Harken obtaining the money.
1988-92
The BCCI scandal breaks. The bank is exposed as a massive criminal enterprise, having catered, during it's history, to some of the most notorious villains of the 20th century, including Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, terrorist leaders Abu Nidal, and the Medellin drug cartel, as well as for being involved in money laundering and the Iran contra scandal and for pilfering investors' cash. Following BCCI's seizure in 1991, Khalid Bin Mahfouz (see above) was indicted in New York State on the grounds that he had withdrawn sizable investments in the bank just before it was seized. In the end, all the charges and claims were dropped after he made payments of $225 million into a Federal Reserve settlement account mainly for the benefit of depositors and creditors who had suffered losses and $245 million to BCCI's court-appointed Liquidators also for the benefit of depositors and creditors.
1992
George H. W. Bush loses to Bill Clinton. Eventually the former president becomes an adviser to the Carlyle Group, a powerful Washington-based private investment firm with interests in the defense industry. Among his duties, Bush helps strengthen Carlyle's ties to the Saudi royal family. He will later visit Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family compound. The bin Ladens eventually invest in the Carlyle Group. Carlyle buys a company called Vinnell Corp., which provides training to the Saudi palace guard. George W. Bush briefly sits on the board of directors of one of Carlyle's subsidiaries.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
BILL WHITE Interview by: Bob McKeown
WHAT DID YOU LEARN TO BE THE, THE BUSINESS TIES AT THAT POINT BETWEEN THE BUSHES AND BIN MAHFOUZ AND BIN LADEN?
Well, Bath had told me that he had used Saudi money to fund George Bush Junior’s start up in the Energy business.
THIS IS THE ARBUSTO OPERATION?
Yes, the Arbusto Partnerships that started in Midland, Texas in the late seventies - early eighties.
WHAT DID THE DOCUMENTS SHOW?
Well I have copies of Jim’s personal financial statements to show that he maintained a revolving line of credit for the Bin Laden Family.
AND HOW MUCH?
It’s $6 to $7 million on the statements that I have. And then on schedules that show his partnership interests, he shows a personal partnership interest of $25 thousand dollars invested in Arbusto Seventy-Nine and another $25 thousand dollar investment in Arbusto Eighty. But those only represent his personal share of the Arab money that went into those ventures.
DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW MUCH MONEY THE SAUDIS PUT IN? Well he told me it was in excess of a million dollars. But I don’t have documents that show exactly how much. I just have Bath’s word to take for the amount.
NOW JIM BATH HAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED HE PUT SAUDI MONEY INTO GEORGE W. BUSH’S COMPANIES AT THAT POINT.
I don’t believe that he’s either denied it or admitted to it. My understanding is that he’s dodged the question by refusing to answer questions pertaining to the funding of Dubya’s companies. I do know that Time Magazine, when they began to investigate this got George Bush Junior to go on the record having denied being in business with Bath and saying that they were just personal friends. Once he was confronted with the documents, then Bush recanted and admitted that Bath had put money in. But my understanding is that in the aftermath of the 9-11 catastrophe, the White House denied that any of that money was Saudi money. They are maintaining that it was all Bath’s money.
“Well I know that it was Saudi money because Bath had no money of his own. We were in business together. I saw his personal financial statements. I knew the amount of cash he had available at any given time. “
AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WAS SAUDI MONEY THERE?
Well I know that it was Saudi money because Bath had no money of his own. We were in business together. I saw his personal financial statements. I knew the amount of cash he had available at any given time. And he also confided in me that the money invested both in our Real Estate business and in Dubya’s Energy business was Saudi money. That was the only money there was.
SO EVEN THE FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS YOU SEE REFLECTED IN THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT AS … CASH?
No, if you look at his financial statement it’ll show that he has maybe fourteen thousand dollars in cash. He has millions of dollars in assets but the only cash available is this Bin Laden revolving line of credit.
LET’S, LET’S LEAP AHEAD HERE. WHAT, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT UH HARKEN ENERGY?
I’m not very knowledgeable about Harken Energy. I just know that Arbusto went through several iterations and became Harken Energy. My understanding is that once again the Arabs came in and bailed Bush Jr. out of some bad business ventures resulting from his bad business decisions and that because of this, he was able to cash in his chips prematurely before the stock nose-dived. What’s of most interest to me in that light is that James Doty, the first Attorney with Baker & Botts who attempted to compel me to cover up this whole story exonerated Bush Jr. from insider trading allegations relating to his dumping of Harken stock while he was with the Securities and Exchange Commission working under Bush Sr.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf
These rivers run deep.....
| |
|
| Newsweek/Richard Clarke dispute claims in Fahrenheit 911
Posted: 6/19/2008 7:35:57 AM | | Michael Moore's movies are light hearted entertainment, not journalism. He sells movie tickets by provoking emotional reaction, not thought. Anyone who gets upset by his innuendo, misrepresentations and outright lies is just playing his game. | |
|
|
Home
login 
